1. The unsuccessful appellant/plaintiff filed the second appeal, who lost the case before the courts below.

2. The averments contained in the plaint, in brief, are as follows:

(a) The appellant/plaintiff Devasthanam owns and is entitled to the suit property among other house sites, nanja and punja lands. The suit property was a minor inam, now converted into Ryotwari and for which after dispute plaintiff Devasthanam is granted patta.

(b)The defendant's predecessors-in-interest belonging to Isaivellalar community were rendering service to the temple both as Devasasi and as skilled musician playing on musical instruments like Mridangam, Thaval and were skilled papers and they were tenants of the said Devasthanam as they were tenant rendering service either as Devadasi or as skilled musician.

(c)The defendant and his predecessors-in-title never refused to render service to the plaintiff Devasthanam and when they originally occupied the suit site as tenant recognising the title of the plaintiff Devasthanam continue to occupy it as tenant and they are either rendering service or they make small payment towards rent and otherwise they continue to recognise the title of the plaintiff Devasthanam to the suit site. Such rendering of service was as per well-known and judicially recognised Tanjore custom.

(d) After the abolition of the Minor Inams, the Government issued Gazette Notification regarding the conversion of Tamil Nadu Minor Inams into Ryotwari Act 1963 (30/63). The defendant for the first time claimed the site as its owner by claiming patta in his name. But the concerned Officer went into the question and decided that patta should be issued to the temple alone.

(e) The suit is based on title to the property by way of abundant caution and the market value of the site is about Rs.5000/- from the date of institution of suit and court fee affixed for the same and the amount claimed is Rs.108/- as damages for use and occupation.

(f)The cause of action for the suit arose on 09.12.1966 when the defendant claimed patta against the rights of the plaintiff/Devasthanam. Thereby the appellant filed a suit for recovery of possession of the site from the defendant and claiming damages for use and occupation.

3. The averments contained in the written statement, in brief, are as follows:

The defendant denies that the plaintiff had title to the suit property and the plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same. Again the plaintiff is bound to show that the suit property was in a minor inam and even if it is so, the plaintiff was not entitled to the patta, as there is a building on the suit site and title of such a site has become vested in the defendant who is the owner of the building. Plaintiff has vaguely stated that patta had been granted to him after dispute. The defendant denied the patta granted by the concerned officer since no enquiry was held by the plaintiff and if it is so, it is behind the back of the defendant. In any event, the said patta will not and cannot clothe the plaintiff with title to the suit property. Neither the defendant nor his predecessors- in-interest rendered any service to the plaintiff and the suit site was not occupied in law by such service. No rent was paid by anyone, recognising or admitting title of the plaintiff in the suit site. The allegations of service and rendition of service are all invented for the purpose of filing the suit.

4. In fact after abolition of Inams Act came into force, defendant applied to the concerned officer for issue of patta to him on the ground that he is the owner of the building, but the said officer after receiving the application did not send any further communication or held any enquiry. The defendant has not been communicated with his decision.

5. In fact the suit site and the building thereon belong to the defendant, his father Pakkiriswami Pillai has purchased the same on 30.10.1933 in court auction held in execution of the Decree granted in O.S.No.130/1932 against the the